Toggle light / dark theme

A genetic editing system similar to CRISPR-Cas9 has been uncovered for the first time in eukaryotes – the group of organisms that include fungi, plants, and animals. The system, based on a protein called Fanzor, can be guided to precisely target and edit sections of DNA, and that could open up the possibility of its use as a human genome editing tool.

The research team, led by Professor Feng Zhang at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, began to suspect that Fanzor proteins might act as nucleases – enzymes that can chop up nucleic acids, like DNA – during a previous investigation.

They were looking into the origins of proteins like Cas9. This is the enzyme part of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. CRISPR (short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) sequences are the guide to particular regions of DNA, and Cas9 makes the cut. We hear a lot about CRISPR-Cas systems and their applications in medicine and biotechnology, but you may not be aware that they originate in bacteria, where they play a key role in immunity against viruses.

Plants have the unique ability to regenerate entirely from a somatic cell, i.e., an ordinary cell that does not typically participate in reproduction. This process involves the de novo (or new) formation of a shoot apical meristem (SAM) that gives rise to lateral organs, which are key for the plant’s reconstruction.

At the , SAM formation is tightly regulated by either positive or negative regulators (genes/) that may induce or restrict shoot regeneration, respectively. But which molecules are involved? Are there other regulatory layers that are yet to be uncovered?

To seek answers to the above questions, a research group led by Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST), Japan studied the process in Arabidopsis, a plant commonly used in . Their research—which was published in Science Advances —identified and characterized a key negative regulator of shoot regeneration.

Immortality has been a dream of human beings since the dawn of time. Mankind´s fascination with cheating death is reflected in scientific records, mythology, and folklore dating back at least to ancient Egypt.

Now, Ray Kurzweil, a former Google engineer, claims that humans will achieve immortality by 2030 – and 86 percent of his 147 predictions have been correct.

Kurzweil spoke with the YouTube channel Adagio, discussing the expansion in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics, which he believes will lead to age-reversing “nanobots.”

In an interview with GQ, 54-year-old David Sinclair says his lifestyle changes got him back to his “20-year-old brain.”

Join us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/MichaelLustgartenPhD

Discount Links:
At-Home Metabolomics: https://www.iollo.com?ref=michael-lustgarten.
Use Code: CONQUERAGING At Checkout.

Epigenetic Testing: https://trudiagnostic.com/?irclickid=U-s3Ii2r7xyIU-LSYLyQdQ6…M0&irgwc=1
Use Code: CONQUERAGING

NAD+ Quantification: https://www.jinfiniti.com/intracellular-nad-test/

Cancer spreads throughout the human body in cunning, almost militaristic, ways. For example, it can manipulate our genetic make-up, take over specific cell-to-cell signaling processes, and mutate key enzymes to promote tumor growth, resist therapies, and hasten its spread from the original site to the bloodstream or other organs.

Enzyme mutations have been of great interest to scientists who study . Scientists in the Liu and Tan labs at UNC’s Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center have been studying mutations of enzyme recognition motifs in substrates, which may more faithfully reflect with the potential to find new targets or directions for .

“We think understanding the roles of mutations on enzyme substrates, instead of the enzyme as a whole, may help to improve efficacy of targeted therapies, especially for enzymes that have both oncogenic and tumor suppressive function through controlling distinct subsets of substrates,” said Jianfeng Chen, Ph.D., who is first author and a postdoctoral fellow in the Liu lab in the UNC Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics.

Humans split away from our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, and formed our own branch on the evolutionary tree about seven million years ago. In the time since—brief, from an evolutionary perspective—our ancestors evolved the traits that make us human, including a much bigger brain than chimpanzees and bodies that are better suited to walking on two feet. These physical differences are underpinned by subtle changes at the level of our DNA. However, it can be hard to tell which of the many small genetic differences between us and chimps have been significant to our evolution.

New research from Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman; University of California, San Francisco Assistant Professor Alex Pollen; Weissman lab postdoc Richard She; Pollen lab graduate student Tyler Fair; and colleagues uses cutting edge tools developed in the Weissman lab to narrow in on the key differences in how humans and chimps rely on certain genes. Their findings, published in the journal Cell on June 20, may provide unique clues into how humans and chimps have evolved, including how humans became able to grow comparatively large brains.

Knowing that you’ve inherited genetic mutations that increase the risk of cancer can help you catch the disease earlier, and if diagnosed, choose the most effective treatments. But despite guidelines that recommend genetic testing for the majority of cancer patients, far too few are tested, according to new research by Stanford Medicine scientists and collaborators.

Among more than a million patients with cancer, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing — an analysis of inherited genes — within two years of diagnosis, according to the study published June 5 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The rates were particularly low among Asian, Black and Hispanic patients.

“When we’re talking about cancer risk, germline genetic testing looks specifically at the genes that, if altered in a way that is harmful, give people a much higher risk of cancer than the average person,” said Allison Kurian, MD, professor of epidemiology and population health, who is the lead author of the study.